Arizona weekly citizen., 1887-01-29
The County Court.

The County Court.
 EDITOR CITIzKS:-On the night of January 4tb, the citizens meeting pre- sided over by Supervisor Anderson, st- ter some discussion over a resolution proposed for the abolition of our County Court; appointed Messrs Ross, Osborn and myself committee to investigate and report the cost of the Court since its organization. Mir. Osborn and n.y. sell. within the next few days, made the necessary investigation, and have since had the facts in our possession, but there seems to be no probability that the meeting which appointed us, vIll ever re-convene. Therefore take this means of letting the community know the result.
 We examined sll of the vouchers for Court expenses, upon which the Board of Supervisors have issued warrants, from April Ist, 1885, the date of the or gsnization of the Court, up to date, and the figures are as follows:
 For witnesses in criminal cRses,
 before grand and petit Jur- Ors. ................S 63S 10 For grand and petit jurors .26O2 50 For attorneys defending psuper criminals. s................-.. 36O OO
 Total: s36OO 60
 Now add to this sum:
 The salary of the Judge, l year
 and months. 62J0 % The salary of the Clerk, l year
 and months hs... 3l50 co
 Total outlay: sl2OOO 60 During the same time the clerk
 turned ID tees, 2,0O0, and
 he performed the work of
 clerk of the Board Supervis-
 ors, who under the old law
 would have received g., loo, 400 %
 Leaving the net outlay ...s 200 6O
 In the same period the District Court made allowances as follows: For witnesses ln criminal cssesS 2Oj0 co tos grand and petit iurors. ITO 30 For attorneys defending pau
 pers ..--......-..--. lou OO The Clerks salary was. 2lOO %
 Total outlay sy........S 6OJO 30 The Clerk turned in fees. ..... 1923 50 Leaving the net outlay .....S 4j26 so
 There were some small bills for print ing blanks In each court of about equal amount, not exceeding sl0O in all and difficult 10 segregste.
 Al this point our committee's duties ended. What 1 say hereafter is from my own investigation. But first, it IS plain that had the Legislature of 1885, not had
 warm spot for the then newly
 elected Probate judges, and
 kept their courts in existence
 until Jan. lst, 1887, the Coun- ty Court would have saved
 the salary of the Probate judge. which came to. S2625 % And the fees paid to the Pro-
 bate Court m the same period
 would have been paid to the
 County Clerk. rk......... 500 co | Total additional saving. .S3425 co | Deduct this amount from the above | net outlay Of s7,90060, and you have S4, 435.6O, Rs what would have been the | actual cost of the County Court for a | year and nine months, or s2,534.70 per | year. Is that eXtrsvagance, or ruin tO | the county; end is there Eny reason why | the same record cannot be made in the | future?
 Note that in the same time the Dis triet Court cost S4526,SO, or s2596.s0 per year.
 Now let us see how the work Of .he two courts compare.
 The County Court was in continuous session, transacted business on 296 days, and was engaged in the hearing of con- ested matters on over l50 days.
 Of criminal cases there were % dis posed of, of which II were dismissed, there was one plea of guilty aud there were lI trials with l2 convictions and 5 Bcquittals.
 Of civil cases, all new, there have been l93. of which 165 have been dis posed of.
 The District Court, during the time mentioned, transacted 0 large mass of United States business, Rs it must do continuously. It sat, uion lS3 days, transacted the following business:
 Ot criminal cases there were 20, of which $ were dismissed, there was l plea of guilty, aDd there were 8 trials with convictions Eni 6 acquitAls.
 Ofcivil eases, Oid Enl Eew, there were about % disposed o'.
 Now allow .hs: ihe United States took up , days of the terra out of , and you have ll0 days for Territorial business, or little over one day for each case disposed of, civil and criminal. But su pose that the District Court had had the l94 cases disposed of by the County Court on its register, st the rate it worked, 1t would have had to to sit ID Pima County 2ll days more to have its calendar as clear ss l; IS now. that IS l20 days more each year.
 In 1886 the DIstric. Court sat here l23 days, Divide up the year, and see where the time necessary could have come from.